62d Congress \ 
^d Session J 



SENATE 



Document 
No. 865 



Shall We Change Our Plan 
'Vyt , of Government? 

I Copy 1 



ADDRESS 



BY 



HON. N. C. YOUNG 

MEMBER OF THE NORTH DAKOTA SUPREME COURT 
FROM 1898 TO 1906 




PRESENTED BY MR. McCUMBER 



July 1, 1912. — Ordered to be printed 



WASHINGTON 
1912 



/ 



A^W 



/ ^ v> 



^^ :^ 













SHALL WE CHANGE OUR PLAN OF GOVERNMENT? 



"Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, 
with all its benefits, its memories and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain pre- 
cisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any prob- 
ability that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, 
while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from — will 
you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? " — Lincoln. 



Everything is wrong. Nothing is right. Whatever is, is obsolete. 
Let all changes which nia}^ be proposed be speedily made. 

These words measurably describe the mood of a large part of the 
people of this country at this time. It is not fair to say that this 
attitude springs from a general abandonment of sane purposes and 
ambitions, for that is not true. It is more just to say that it repre- 
sents a popular protest against existing evils and an honest ambition 
for improvement, for better things, for progress. 

We know that all progress requires change. We know that the 
old gives way to the new, and because of this ever-recurring fact 
many of us conclude that every change suggested means progress, 
and promptly approve it without carefully inquiring whether the 
proposed change will carry us forward or backward. 

One of these proposed and imminent changes presents a question 
for decision to each one of us, which I believe is the most important 
and serious one that has confronted the people of this country since 
the establishment of our Government. I refer to the present pop- 
ular movement to change the frame-work of our Government from a 
Republic — that is, a representative democracy, to a pure democracy; 
from a government in which the people legislate and rule through 
representatives chosen by themselves, to a government in which the 
people in person assume the entire exercise of judgment and the per- 
sonal burdens and duties of administering the government. 

No question of the power of the people is involved in the proper 
discussions of or in answering this question. Since the promulga- 
tion of the Declaration of Independence the people in this country 
have been sovereign and supreme. These words of Daniel Webster 
are as true to-day as when they were uttered in 1848: 

He who considers there may be, is, or ever has been since the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence any person who looks to any other source of power in this country than the 
people so as to give peculiar merit to those who clamor loudest in its assertions must 
be out of his mind even more than Don Quixote. His imagination was only perverted ; 
he saw things not as they were, though what he saw were things. He saw windmills 
and took them to be giant knights on horseback. This was bad enough, but who 
ever says, or speaks as if he thought that anybody looks to any other source of political 
power in this country than the people must have a stronger and wilder imagination, 
for he sees nothing but the creations of his own fancy. He stares at phantoms. Let 

(3) 



4 SHALL WE CHANGE OUE PLAN OF GOVEENMENT i 

all admit what none deny, that the only source of political power in this country is 
the people. Let us admit tliat they are sovereign, for they are so; that is to say, the 
aggregate community, the collected will of the people, is sovereign. 

The question then is not, Have the people the power ? The real 
and only question is, How shall the people exercise their power? 
Shall we continue to exercise the powers of go vernment through rep- 
resentativ^es chosen by ourselves under the plan given to us by the 
founders of this Nation, or shall we discard this plan and attempt to 
personally exercise the judgment, the duties and functions of gov- 
ernment ourselves ? 

It is for us to choose. We have the power to abolish our plan of 
government, to amend it, or to adopt any form of government which 
we may prefer. 

It was the unanimous judgment of the founders of this Nation that 
a pure democracy, that is, a government in wliich the people exercise 
the judgment, the duties and the functions of government personally, 
was not possible or feasible in this country. What they did was to 
give us a republican form of government, a representative democracy, 
a government by representatives chosen by the people for definite 
terms and v/ith authority and powers restricted by constitutional 
and legislative restraints, wliich is the nearest approach to a pure 
democracy that they deemed consistent with stability and safety. 
It is now proposed to change this system to a pure democracy, a sys- 
tem which was condemned and rejected by the founders of this Nation 
without dissent and after the most mature deliberation. 

The leaders in the present crusade do not disguise or deny the fact 
that it is their purpose to effect this change, indeed, they proclaim 
that it is their mission to bring or place the Government in the hands 
of "the people," to abolish government by representatives, and to 
substitute for it the direct personal judgment of the people them- 
selves. It is proposed to accomplish this change by adopting and 
incorporating into our Constitution and laws what are known as the 
initiative, referendum, and the recall. We all must admit that if the 
changes embraced in these proposals are approved and adopted by 
us they will have the effect sought for, that is, the abolition of rep- 
resentative government and the establishment of a pure democracy — 
a direct government by the people acting in person. 

Through the medium of the initiative the people will, without the 
aid of conference or consultation, and independent of all legislative 
bodies, acting for themselves as a great but disassociated body, enact 
such laws as any elector may propose which shall receive the approval 
of a majority of the electors. 

Through the referendum the people will, by a majority vote of the 
electors, annul such acts as are passed by existing legislative bodies 
as do not at any time meet the approval of a majority of the electors. 

As applied to constitutions, the initiative and referendum will 
make their provisions and guaranties subject at all times to the will 
of a majority of the electors. 

Through the recall all public officers will be required in their official 
acts and at their peril to reflect the present opinions of a majority of 
the electors; and judges, in construing constitutions, constitutional 
guarantees, and statutes, or in deciding private controversies, will be 
required to make their decisions conform to the present opinion of a 



SHALL WE CHANGE OUR PLAIST OF GOVERNMENT I 5 

majority of the electors, all under the peril of being removed by a 
dissatisfied majority of the electors. 

It is very plain that this is a revolution in the plan of government 
under which we have lived — a peaceable revolution to be sure, but 
nevertheless a revolution, and it must be judged and approved or dis- 
approved by us as such. 

A proposed change in the form of any government, whether it be 
by force or peaceful means, is always a most serious matter. Experi- 
ments in government are dangerous and should be entered upon only 
for pressing and sufficient reasons, and then only after the most 
mature reflection. No intelligent people will blindly change the form 
of their government merely for the sake of a change. All citizens who 
are capable of self-government, who are capable of reflection and 
intelligent action, will satisfy themselves before making such a revo- 
lutionary change as that now proposed, that there is in fact a vital 
defect in our plan of government and that the proposed change will, 
with reasonable certainly, remedy it. All thoughtful men should and 
will exact from the sponsors and advocates of this change satisfactory 
proof of two things: First, that the representative system of govern- 
ment under which we have lived is vitally defective ; and second , that 
the plan of government which they propose — a pure democracy — is 
better and will remedy it. It is not reasonable to ask us to give up 
what we have and adopt something new without satisfactory evidence 
that the change will be an improvement. Upon a matter of such 
vital concern to each one of us, our good sense, our reason, our expe- 
' rience, and affection for our country, and hope for its future progress 
and safety, demand that we proceed with caution and that we decide 
this question only upon the most unselfish motives and upon the most 
complete investigation. No conscientious citizen will attempt to jus- 
tify the proposed change for personal, selfish, factional, or political 
reasons. The question is above selfish, factional, or party interests, 
for the answer to it affects the stability of the Government under 
which we live, v/hich shelters us, and which we hope will shelter our 
posterity. 

It is not to the point to criticize or condemn the motives of the pro- 
moters of this movement. It is sufficient to know that the question 
is now presented to the people of this country for an answer. It must 
be answered. And it will be answered either intelligently and upon 
reflection or under the compelling influence of passion and prejudice. 
It does not matter as to the motive with which it is answered; the 
result of a change will be the same. The serious question is, how 
shall it be answered ? Is the change proposed a step forward or is it 
a step in the dark, or a step backward ? This is a time when we must 
think for ourselves, for each citizen must answer for himself, and upon 
the answer depends the future of this country. 

Surely at this juncture we should heed these words of Lincoln: 

If we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should 
do so upon evidence so conclusive, and arguments so clear, that even their great 
authority fairly considered and weighed can not stand. 

Up to the present decade our Constitution with its guarantees of 
personal liberty and private rights, its checks and balances, its sep- 
aration and independence of legislative, executive, and judicial powers 
and the representative plan of government established by it, had our 



6 SHALL WE CHANGE OUE PLAX OF GOVEKNMENT? 

undivided respect and affection as it still has of the lovers of liberty 
in all other countries of the world. 

Shall we now say, without reflection, that this plan of government 
is "^Tong ? 

Do not the circumstances under which our Constitution was created, 
do not the high character and purpose of the men who framed it, com- 
mend its provisions to our favorable consideration ? 

Thirty-nine men, the ablest of the colonies, met in Independence 
Hall in Philadelphia, representing the three millions of people of the 
colonies, and published to the world the declaration of their independ- 
ence. It required seven years of war to secure an acknowledgement 
of their freedom. The Government hastily created by the articles of 
Confederation, at most a temporary expedient, inadequate even dur- 
ing the war when it was sustained by the common dangers and ardent 
patriotism of that period, was totally inadequate when peace returned. 
The people of the colonies had not surrendered to it sufficient power to 
enable it to perform the j)roper functions of government. Because of 
its weakness it had little respect at home and was an object of derision 
abroad. The new-born nation was falling to pieces. The libert}^ so 
recently won was on the point of being lost by the people of this 
country for want of a government of sufficient strength to preserve 
it. It was fortunate for the people of that period, for us, and for the 
world, that this crisis in our national life came when the men of the 
Revolution were still in their full vigor and before they had been 
succeeded by another generation. A call went out to the colonies for 
a convention of representatives to meet this crisis. Each colony sent 
its wisest and best. This convention also assembled in Independence 
Hall from which 11 years before — and they were eventful years — the 
representatives of the colonies had proclaimed their independence. 

History has no record of the organization of a government under 
circumstances more portentious of success, or of an assemblage of men 
better qualified, by training, experience, and patriotic zeal for the 
task of organizing a government to preserve human liberty; soldiers 
of the Revolution — statesmen, schooled in State and national affairs 
and in the science of government, patriots all of them. Washington, 
the most efficient champion of human liberty the world has yet pro- 
duced; Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, James Wilson, and Benjamin 
Franklin — these four signers of the Declaration of Independence — 
Franklin, statesman and philosopher, full of years and wisdom, the 
peer of any age — Rufus King, Livingston, Dickinson, Rutledge, the 
Pinckneys, familiar household names; and Madison and Hamilton, 
masters of the science of government and expounders of the Consti- 
tution in the Federalist- — translated into a dozen languages, for which 
"services to the cause of liberty" upon the recommendation of the 
Committee of Public Instruction they were voted honorary citizenship 
by the National Assembly of France. 

By unanimous vote Washington was made president of the con- 
vention. They deliberated from May 25 to September 17, 1 787, when, 
by unanimous vote, they approved of the Constitution and also 
Washington's letter commending it to the people of the Colonies for 
adoption, in which he said that it was ''the Constitution which has 
appeared to us most advisable. * * * In all of our deliberations 
on the subject we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us 
as the greatest interest of every true American — the consolidation of 



SHALL WE CHAISTGE OUR PLAN" OF GOVERNMEITT I 7 

our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, per- 
haps our national existence. * * * It is liable to as few objec- 
tions as could reasonably be expected. We hope and believe that it 
may promote the welfare of that country so dear to us all and to 
secure her freedom and happiness is our most ardent wish * * *." 
The members of the convention knew that all attempts to establish 
popular governments in the favor of pure democracies had resulted 
in failure. It was the high ambition and purpose of the members of 
this convention to avoid the causes of the downfall of other democ- 
racies and to frame a plan of government which should be of the 
people, for the people, and by the people, which would endure. The 
members of this convention beheved that they had solved this prob- 
lem for themselves and for us through the separation and independ- 
ence of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers and the intro- 
duction of the principle of representation instead of direct action of 
the people. Hamilton voiced their opinion in these words. 

It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and 
example, to decide the important question whether societies of men are really capable 
or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice or whether they are 
forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on action and force. 

Jay, who was not a member of the convention and therefore could 
speak freely on the subject, in advocating the adoption of the Con- 
stitution, said, in reference to the deliberations of the convention: 

This convention, composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and 
many of whom had become highly distinguished for their patriotism, virtue, and 
wisdom in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous 
task in the mild season of peace with minds unoccupied with other subjects. They 
passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation, and finally, 
without having been awed by power or influenced by any passions except for love of 
their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by 
their joint and very unanimous councils. 

It was by such men and under such circumstances that the Con- 
stitution was created and adopted. There were no candidates for 
office in the convention which framed it. 

To the critics of that time who pointed ominously to the unbroken 
failures of popular governments in the form of pure democracies 
Hamilton, in defending the Constitution, answered: 

If it had been found impossible to have devised models of a more perfect structure, 
then the enlightened friends of liberty would have been obliged to have abandoned 
that specie of government as indefensible. The science of politics, however, like 
most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various prin- 
ciples is now well understood which were either not known or imperfectly known to 
the ancients. The distributions of powers into distinct departments, the introduction 
of legislative balances and checks, the institution of courts holding their offices during 
good behavior, the representation of the people in the legislatures by deputies of their 
own election — these are wholly new discoveries or have made their principal progress 
toward perfection in modern times. They are the means and power by which the 
excellencies of representative government may be retained and its imperfections 
lessened or avoided. * * * 

The plan of government thus wrought out was approved by the peo- 
ple of the 13 Colonies after a full discussion of its merits. The distribu- 
tion of powers into separate and independent departments and the rep- 
resentative principle established by the National Constitution were also 
made vital principles in the State constitutions adopted by the Col- 
onies. During the 125 years since the Federal Constitution was 
adopted and at various intervals, commencing with Vermont in 1791, 



8 SHALL WE CHANGE OUE PLAN OF GOVERNMENT ? 

the inhabitants of more than 30 States, widely separated, have framed 
constitutions upon the same plan and embracing the same principles 
and have presented themselves for admission and been admitted into 
the Union. The plan of government given to us by the founders of 
this Nation had their complete and unanimous approval. It was not 
until the present decade that it was suggested that this plan was 
wrong or obsolete. 

Recently a number of States have become full converts to the 
present popular movement for a pure democracy — for direct govern- 
ment by the people. * * * j|^ ^.[\\ j-^q^ -^q clamied that the action 
of some of these, Arizona, for instance, should have much, if any, 
weight with us in our deliberations. For many years it hsCs been 
seriously doubted whether the people of that State had reached a 
period of development which made them capable of maintaining a 
State government. The most that can be said is that the people of 
that State have hastil}'^ and without deliberation responded to the 
appeals of the leaders of the present popular movement. 

Neither is the recent action of the people of the State of Cali- 
fornia in adopting the initiative, referendum, and recall in their con- 
stitution of much aid in determining whether a representative or 
pure democracy furnishes the best plan of government. At their 
recent election they decided in favor of the direct plan. Manifestly 
they did not act with the calm and deliberate purpose and upon the 
reflection that characterized the framing of the Federal Constitution 
and its subsequent adoption by the several States. The people of 
that State were deeply and righteously stirred by graft exposures, 
municipal corruption, dynamite outrages, corporate oppression, and 
corporation interference in public affairs. Compelled and influenced 
by these imminent grievances, they adopted the direct methotl of 
government by the people as a speedy and effective means of curing 
their present evils without much or any thought of future danger 
when the public mind is not aroused. 

The deliberate judgment of the people of this country up to the 
present crusade has been unanimous in condemning the purely demo- 
cratic form of government. This is also the unanimous verdict of 
history. It is also the judgment of writers upon the science of govern- 
ment in both modern and ancient times. 

Garner, in his late work on Political Science, says: 

Democracies are of two kinds, pure or direct, and representative or indirect. A 
pure democracy is one in which the will of the state is formulated and expressed 
directly and immediately through the people acting in their primary capacity. A 
representative democracy is one in which the will of the state is ascertained and ex- 
pressed through the agency of a small and select number who act as the representatives 
of the people. A pure democracy is practicable only in small States where the voting 
population may be assembled for purposes of legislation, and where the collective 
needs of the people are few and simple. In large and complex societies where the 
legislative wants of the people are numerous, the very necessities of the situation make 
government by the whole body of the citizens a physical impossibility. * * * 
What is in substance a representative democracy is sometimes called a repiiblican or 
representative government. * * * A pure or direct type exists in too narrow and 
restricted a form and is too impracticable to merit extended consideration. Sufficient 
for the needs of the few small communities where it still survives, it is wholly unsuited 
to the conditions of the complex states of to-day. 



SHALL WE CHANGE OUR PLAN OF GOVERNMENT f 9 

Aristotle, the greatest master of the science of government of the 
ancient world, T\Titing in reference to pure democracies in the fourth 
century before Christ, said: 

One species of democracy is where the public offices are open to every citizen, and 
the law is supreme. Another species of democracy is where the public offices are open 
to every citizen, but where the people and not the law is supreme. The latter state 
of things occurs when the government is administered by psephismata (by popular 
vote), and not according to laws, and it is produced by the influence of the demagogues; 
In democracies administered according to law there is no demagogues; the most dis- 
tinguished of the citizens presiding in the assembly; but where the laws are not 
supreme, demagogues arise. For the people become, as it were, a compound monarch, 
each individual being only invested with power as a member of the sovereign body; 
and a people of this sort, as if they were a monarch, seek to exercise a monarchical 
power in order that they may not be governed by the law, and they assume the char- 
acter of a despot; wherefore flatterers are in honor with them. A democracy of this 
sort is analogous to a tyranny (or despotism among monarchies). Thus the character 
of the government is the same in both, and both tyrannize over the superior classes, 
and psephismata are in the democracy what special ordinances are in the despotism. 
Moreover, the demagogue in the democracy corresponds to the flatterer (or courtier) of 
the despot; and each of these classes of persons is the most powerful under their re- 
spective governments. It is to be remarked that the demagogues are, by referring 
everything to the people, the cause of the goA'ernment being ad.ministered by psephis- 
mata, and not according to laws, since their power is increased by an increase of the 
power of the people, whose opinions they command. The demagogues likewise attack 
the magistrates, and say that the people ought to decide, and since the people willingly 
accept the decision, the power of all the magistrates is destroyed. Accordingly, it 
seems to have been justly said that a democracy of this sort is not entitled to the name 
of a constitution, for where the laws are not supreme there is no constitution. In order 
that there should be a constitution, it is necessary that the government should bead- 
ministered according to the laws, and that the magistrates and constituted authorities 
should decide in the individual cases respecting the application of them. 

Burke, in his Reflections on the French Revolution, said: 

I reprobate no form of government merely upon abstract principles. There may be 
situations in which the purely democratic form will become necessary; there may be 
some (very few and particularly circumstanced) where it would be clearly desirable. 
This I do not take to be the case of France, or of any other great country. Until now 
we have seen no example of considerable democracies. The ancients were better 
acquainted with them. Not being wholly unread in the authors who have seen the 
most of these constitutions, and who best understood them, I can not help concurring 
with their opinion that the absolute democracy, no more than the absolute monarchy, 
is to be reckoned among the legitimate forms of government. They think it rather the 
corruption and degeneracy than the sound constitution of a republic. If I recollect 
rightly, Aristotle observes that a democracy has many striking points of the resem- 
blance with a tyranny. Of this I am certain — that in a democracy the majority of 
citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppression upon the minority whenever 
strong divisions prevail in that kind of policy, as they often must, and that oppression 
of the minority will extend to far greater numbers and will be carried on with much 
greater fury than can almost ever be apprehended from the domination of a single 
scepter. In such a popular persecution individual sufferers are in a much more 
deplorable condition than in any other. Under a cruerprince they have the balmy 
compassion of mankind to assuage the smart of their wounds; they have the plaudits 
of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those 
who are subjected to wrongs under multitudes are deprived of all external consolations; 
they seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their own species. 

Madison, in expounding the Constitution, in the Federalist, said: 

A piu-e democracy can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of factions. A common 
passion of interest will in almost every case be felt by a majority of the whole. A 
communication and concert result from the form of government itself, and there is 
nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or any obnoxious indi- 
vidual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence. 
Their conditions have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the 
rights of property, and have in general been short in their lives as they have been 
violent in their deaths. Theoretical politicians who have patronized this species of 



10 SHALL WE CHANGE OUR PLAN OF GOVERNMENT? 

gpvernment have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality 
in their political rights they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimi- 
lated in their possessions and opinions and their passions. 

Webster, in his speech on the Rhode Island Government, in 1848, 
said : 

The people can not act daily as the people. They must establish a government and 
invest it with as much of sovereign power as the case requires. * * * The exercise 
of legislative power and the other powers of government immediately by the people 
themselves is impracticable. They must be exercised by representatives of the 
people, and what distinguishes the American Government as much as anything else 
from any government of ancient or modern times is the marvelous felicity of the 
representative system. * * * The power is with the people, but they can not 
exercise it in masses or per capita. They can only exercise it by their representatives. 
* * * It is one of the principles of the American system that the people limit their 
governments, national and state. It is another principle, equally true and certain 
and equally important, that the people often limit themselves. They set bounds to 
their own powers. They have chosen to secure the institutions which they established 
against the sudden impulse of mere majorities. All our institutions teem with instances 
of this. It was this great conservative principle in constituting forms of government 
that they should secure what they had established against hasty changes by simple 
majorities. * * * It is one remarkable instance of the enactment and application 
of that great American principle that the constitution of government should be cau- 
tiously and prudently interfered with and that changes should not ordinarily be 
begun and caiTied through by bare majorities. * * * We are not to take the will 
of the people from public meetings, nor from public assemblies, by which the timid are 
teiTified and the prudent are alarmed, and by which society is disturbed. These are 
not American modes of seeming the will of the people, and never were. 

Leckey, in his Democracy and Liberty, says: 

One thing is absolutely essential to its safe working, namely, a written constitution 
securing property and contracts; placing difficulties in the way of organic change; 
restricting the power of the majorities; and preventing outbursts of mere temporary 
discontent and mere casual conditions from overturning the main pillars of the state. 

Mill, in his essay on Government, says: 

In this great discovery of modern times, the system of representation, the solution 
of all the difficulties, both speculative and practical, will perhaps be found. If it 
can not, we seem to be forced upon the extraordinary conclusion tha,t popular gov- 
ernment is impossible. * * * The community can act only when assembled, 
and when assembled it is incapable of acting. The community, however, can choose 
representatives . 

Tucker, in his work on the Constitution, says : 

Representation is the modern method by which the will of a great multitude may 
express itself through an elected body of men for deliberation in lawmaking. It is 
the only practicable way by which a large country can give expression to its will in 
deliberate legislation. Give suffrage to the people, let lawmaking be in the hands 
of their representatives, and make the representatives responsible at short periods 
to the popular judgment, and the rights of men will be safe, for they will select only 
such as will protect their rights and dismiss those who, upon trial, will not. * * * 
The government of the numerical majority is the mechanism of brute force. 

The general judgment of students of the science of government upon 
our Constitution is summarized in the familiar statement of the great 
English statesman, Gladstone, when he characterized it as "the most 
wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and pur- 
pose of man." 

Are all these mistaken views ? Did the founders of this Republic 
underestimate the capacity of mankind for self-government? Did 
they err in believing that it was necessary in order to protect the rights 
of individuals and minorities to place constitutional restraints upon 
majorities? Did they err in making the three departments of Grov- 



SHALL WE CHANGE OUK PLAN OF GOVEENMEKT? 11 

ernment and in making them independent of each other ? Were these 
precautions unnecessary to prevent usurpations of power ? 

Has the representative plan of government given to us by the found- 
ers of this Repubhc been a faihire, that we should now discard it ? 

Does history record a period in v/hich there has been such political, 
social, and material progress as that since the adoption of our Con- 
stitution ? 

Has an^T- nation on earth a similar record for incorruptible execu- 
tives ? 

Has any judicial tribunal ever existed of the high rank and efficiency 
of our Federal Supreme Court ? 

Have not the judges of the inferior Federal courts, as a body, been 
men of high ability and of irreproachable character? Where just 
cause for criticism has existed, has it not been the rare exception? 

We have had scandals connected with the election of national leg- 
islators; but have not these, too, been exceptions, and do they not 
serve to emphasize the high character of our national legislative body 
as a whole ? In our hundred and twenty-five years of history has any 
law ever been put upon the Federal statute books as a result of bri- 
bery ? But shall we expect perfect government from im^perfect men ? 
And is it not true that where corruption or bribery has elected a Mem- 
ber of our National Legislature that it has been caused by the corrup- 
tion, indifference, or deliberate neglect of the electorate? In such 
cases is it not true that it is not the plan of government but the char- 
acter of the electorate which is at fault? Is there any legitimate 
reason for believing that an electorate which, thi'ough indifference, 
incompetence, or corrupt motives, chooses corrupt legislators will, 
when acting directly, produce wise and righteous laws ? 

Before abandoning the representative form of government shall we 
not consider what the dissemination of the representative principle 
established by the founders of this Republic has done for the advance- 
ment of human liberty throughout the world ? Shall we forget that 
the French Republic had its origin in the plan evolved by the founders 
of this Republic ? Shall v/e forget that our plan of government fur- 
nished the plan for the German Federation ? Shall we forget that the 
American idea of constitutional checks upon the exercise of govern- 
mental power by adoption has placed its limitations upon almost all 
surviving monarchies of the world ? Shall we forget that it removed, 
in form at least, all despotic power from the Western Hemisphere and 
gave to each country m this western world a constitutional form of 
government ? Do we not knovN^ that within the last few months the 
ancient Empire of China has adopted a republican form of government 
with a constitution largely modeled after the plan framed bv our 
fathers in 1787? 

Were the founders of this Republic mistaken ? Have we too been 
misled ? 

Rather, are we not now being misled? And are we not now 
about to adopt a plan of government which is foredoomed to failure ? 

We are now asked to abandon the representative form of gov- 
ernment for what is in effect a pure democracy. Is this to go for- 
ward or to go backward? If we follow the leaders of this move- 
ment, are we not following the blind leaders of the blind ? What 
new assurances of success, if any, do they hold out to us ? Has hu- 
man nature changed ? Do we expect it to change ? Have men ever 



12 SHALL WE CHANGE OUR PLAN OF GOVERNMENT? 

been perfect ? Will they be perfect under a pure democracy ? Is it 
not true that mankind is and always has been, and so far as we 
know, always will be creatures of passion and prejudice, prone 
to violence and hasty judgment; requiring restramt as an essen- 
tial to good conduct and sane judgment? Is not the difference 
between the savage and the civilized man this: That one acts with- 
out restraint and the other acts under restraint? 

Why abandon the ship which has carried us and is carrying us 
safely for one that is doomed to sink early in the voyage ? 

Those who timidly express a distrust of these proposed changes 
are met with the withering question: ''Are you afraid to trust the 
people?" This challenge suffices to utterly destroy political rivals 
and to entirely silence those ambitious but timid souls who seek 
popular favor, but to those of us who merely wish to reach an intelli- 
gent decision on a most vital question it presents neither reason nor 
argument. It may answer the selfish purposes of those who seek 
public office, through popular favor, but it furnishes no aid to us in 
making an intelligent and satisfactory answer to the question before 
us. We know that those men who clothe us with perfect wisdom 
and perfect judgment, at all times, are self -deceived or dishonest 
with us. Lst us not deceive or be dishonest with ourselves. 

We know that men are imperfect. They always have been and 
always will bo creatures of passion and prejudice and prone to hasty 
and mistaken judgments. We may well beware of those who flatter 
us for our favor. 

Hamilton uttered a timely warning when he said : 

A dangerous ambition more often hirks behind the specious mask of zeal for the 
rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and 
efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has found a much 
more certain road to the introduction to despotism than the latter, and that of those 
men who have overturned the liberties of republics the greatest number have begun 
their career by paying an obsequious court to the people — commencing demagogues 
and ending tyrant's. 

Shall we forget the name and words of Washington ? He has 
not been forgotten elsewhere. The French people did not forget 
him. After they had secured their freedom they sent the key to 
the Bastile to him at his home at Mt. Vernon, where it still remains 
as a token of their gratitude for his great services to them and to 
the cause of human freedom throughout the world. None realized 
better than Washington the imperfections of mankind and the im- 
practicability of a pure democracy and the necessity for a restraint 
upon human passions. Did he not voice the wisdom of the ages 
and the common experiences of men when he said: 

It is on great occasions only, and after time has been given for counsel and deliberate 
reflection, that the real voice of the people can be known. 

Are not his opinions still entitled to weight with us ? Shall we 
not heed his words : 

Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. On the contrary, 
laws, under no form of government are better supported, liberty and property better 
secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind. * * * If in the 
opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be, in 
any particular, wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment, in the way which the Con- 
stitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this in 
one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which 
governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance, in 



SHALL WE CHANGE OUE PLAN OF GOVEENMENT ? 13 

permanent evil, any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. 

* * * Toward the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your 
present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular 
oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit 
of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of 
assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations, which will im- 
pair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly over- 
thrown. * * =K This Government, this offspring of our choice, uninfluenced and 

"unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in 
its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting securit}- with energy, and con- 
taining within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your con- 
fidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquies- 
cence in its measures are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of liberty. 

* * * The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to 
alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time 
exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly 
obligatory upon all. 

Do we not owe it to ourselves before abandoning our plan of 
government for another also to carefully weigh these words of 
Lincoln : 

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric 
with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain 
precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any pos- 
sibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, 
while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from — will 
you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? 

Are we ready to submit ourselves to the doctrine that the ma- 
jority as they express themselves from time to time are always 
right? Are we ready to agree that no obstructions should be 
placed upon the dominating will of an existing majority? And by a 
majority we do not mean a majority of all the people — but of the 
electors. The electors are but one-fifth of the people and a ma- 
jority at any election means no more than one-tenth of the people, 
who are affected. Are we ready to say that all public officers shall 
follow the wish of the majority of electors? 

That courts shall construe statutes and constitutional provisions 
in accordance with the will of the majority as they shall express it 
at any time ? 

Are we ready to say that controversies shall be decided by our 
judicial tribunals as the majority of the electorate shall will? Will 
we agree that the guaranty to individuals and to minorities con- 
tained in the Federal Constitution shall be subject to the control of 
an impassioned majority? 

If we approve this proposed plan of governing through the unre- 
strained power of the dominant majority, we must also approve the 
consequences which may follow it. 

Are we ready, at the command of a majority of electors, to give 
up our religious freedom and agree to the establishment of a state 
religion ? 

Are we prepared to surrender the rights of free speech and the 
freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right 
to petition whenever a prevailing majority of electors shall so 
decide ? 

Will we permit a majority to deny to us the great liberty writ, the 
writ of habeas corpus ? 

Shall we agree that a majority may pass bills of attainder and 
make acts which are innocent to-day crimes to-morrow ? 



14 SHALL WE CHANGE OUK PLAN OF GOVEENMENT? 

Are we ready to agree that a majority may provide that soldiers 
shall be quartered in our homes without our consent in times of 
peace ? 

That our persons and houses and eiTects shall not be free from 
unreasonable searches and seizures ? 

That warrants may issue without probable cause; that we may be 
held to answer for crimes without a presentment; that we may be put 
twice in jeopardy for the same oifense; that we may be compelled to 
witness agahist ourselves in criminal cases; that our property may 
be taken for public use without just compensation; that we may be 
deprived of our life, liberty, and property without due process of law; 
that we shall have no right to speedy and public trial by an impartial 
jury; that we shall have no right to be confronted by the witnesses 
against us; that we shall have no right to process to compel the 
attendance of witnesses in our favor or to have counsel to aid us in 
our defense; that excessive bail may be required and cruel and 
unusual punishments may be inflicted ? 

These are some of the rights guaranteed to us by the Federal Con- 
stitution which the promoters of the present revolution ask us to 
imperil by adopting the purely democratic form of government. 

A few years ago the battleship Maine was the pride of our Navy. 
It was manned with the flower of American seamen. Its steel-ribbed 
sides were proof against the shots of the enemies' largest guns. 
One night while the crew slept a Spanish mine was exploded beneath 
its keel; the flames broke through and entered its powder rooms; in 
a short time, measured by minutes that great ship /with most of its 
crew, rested beneath the waves of Habana harbor. 

Our ship of state is proof against external force. It is not proof 
against internal violence. Shall we now, against the judgment of 
the founders of this Republic, against the verdict of history and 
our own experience, remove the restrictions which have thus far 
secured us against the violence of passion and prejudice? Shall we 
deliberately expose ourselves to the fate which has overtaken all such 
experiments in human government ? 

Shall we not at this time take to heart the warning words of that 
great patriot and jurist, Joseph Story: 

The fates of other republics — their rise, their progress, their decay, and theii- fall — 
are -written but too legibly on the pages of history, if, indeed, they were not continually 
before us in the startling fragments of their ruins. These republics have perished and 
have perished by their own hands. Prosperity has enervated them, corruption has 
debased them, and a venal populace has consummated their destruction. The people, 
alternately the prey of military chieftains at home and of ambitious invaders from 
abroad, have been sometimes cheated out of their liberties by servile demagogues, 
sometimes betrayed into a surrender of them by false patriots, and sometimes they 
have willingly sold them for a price to a despot who had bidden the highest for his 
victims. They have disregarded the warning voice of their truest friends. They have 
listened to the counsels of fawning sycophants or base calumniators of the wise and 
good. They have reverenced power more in its high abuses and summary movements 
than in its calm and constitutional energy, when it dispensed blessings with a liberal 
hand. They have surrendered to faction what belonged to the common interests and 
common rights of the country. Patronage and party, the triumph of an artful popular 
leader, and the discontents of a day, have outweighed, in their view, all solid prin- 
ciples and institutions of government. Such are the melancholy lessons of the past 
history of republics down to our own. * * * 

If our Union should once be broken up, it is impossible that a new Constitution should 
ever be formed embracing the whole territory. We shall be divided into several 
nations or confederacies, rivals in power, pursuits, and interests; too proud to brook 
injury and too near to make retaliation distant or ineffectual. Our very animosities 



SHALL WE CHANGE OUR PLAN OF GOVERNMENT? 15 

will, like those of all other kindred nations, become the more deadly because our 
lineage, laws, and institutions are the same. Let the history of the Grecian and Italian 
Republics warn us of our dangers. The National Constitution is our last and our only 
security. United, we stand; divided, we fall. 

Let, then, the rising generation be inspired with an ardent love for their country 
and an unquenchable thirst for liberty and a profound reverence for the Constitution 
and the Union. Let the American youth never forget that they possess a noble inheri- 
tance, bought by the toils and sufferings and blood of their ancestors, and capable, 
if wisely improved and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all 
the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, of property, of re- 
ligion, and of independence. The structure has been erected by architects of con- 
summate §kill and fidelity; its foundations are solid; its compartments are beautiful, 
as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order; and its defenses are 
impregnable from without. 

o 



J-lBRfiRY OF 



^ONGRESS 



0t2 0^»mm 




